Hillary blames FBI Director Comey for her loss

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

The ONLY way Wyoming and New Hampshire's votes count is with the Electoral College. (Has nothing to do with slavery, Sandy.)

According to the Wikipedia article on the Electoral College:

"[James] Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

'There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.' "

So, yes, the Electoral College did have something to do with slavery. But you are also correct -- though more as an afterthought -- according to the following text that follows shortly what I quoted above:

"Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections."

But the genesis of the Electoral College had more to do with the quality of the election than its fairness:

"Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen,

'A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks].' "

 

BTW, there are Constitutional scholars who do agree with what I said. See the PBS article "Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars."

Edited November 22, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Glenn Nall]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

According to the Wikipedia article on the Electoral College:

"[James] Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

'There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.' "

So, yes, the Electoral College did have something to do with slavery. But you are also correct -- though more as an afterthought -- according to the following text that follows shortly what I quoted above:

"Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections."

But the genesis of the Electoral College had more to do with the quality of the election than its fairness:

"Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen,

'A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks].' "

 

BTW, there are Constitutional scholars who do agree with what I said. See the PBS article "Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars."

I know this. I meant it no longer is the reason it's relevant.

(and i am working on Hillary's 'list.' haven't forgotten. busy as hell right now.)

Edited November 22, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/21/2016 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Nall said:

And there are NOT many people from the Right who think the US Constitution might be "wrong." That is a very irresponsible claim. The only people who think it might be "wrong," (whatever that means, as if there are correct and incorrect answers), are those who do not know much about it, why it was written, and in what spirit, and for what purposes.

It's by far the Left who think this.

 

Presumptive President Trump today declared he was above the law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest_us_58349547e4b09b6055ff367d?ifouefrqr1away8pvi

Where in the Constitution does it say the laws of the country don't apply to the Prez?

[Ron Ecker]

19 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

Presumptive President Trump today declared he was above the law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest_us_58349547e4b09b6055ff367d?ifouefrqr1away8pvi

Where in the Constitution does it say the laws of the country don't apply to the Prez?

 

According to the article, he's correct that conflict of interest laws (or rules, which are they?) do not apply to the president or other elected officials. So if he wants to run his business from the White House, it looks like nothing can prevent him from doing so.

It's going to be a wild ride.

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

On 11/21/2016 at 9:17 AM, Glenn Nall said:

I didn't say or imply that you are. The sentence reads, "Your comment is unfair," (it is), "and is typical of the Democratic establishment..." - which it is. So the only real inference you can make here is that I've claimed you've made a comment that is typically one heard from the Democratic Establishment.

I would neither want to be guilty of even saying things - of even sounding like things - that are typical of the Establishment Government, left or right, if i'm not part of it.

My goal, like many of those this election, is to seek a solution, not be part of the problem. Contrary to what many of you think, there are already Democrats in Congress who will want to, and be able to, work together with the administration-to-be. I hope ya'll don't hate that too much.

Eldridge Cleaver (famous Democrat) said, simply, and i can't quote it, but - If I'm not part of the solution, I'm part of the problem.

I've seen nary even a suggestion of a solution in this thread of gripes and whining; just plain, good old-fashioned blaming - and of the Republicans, as if the Democrats are the party of angels or something.

So. your comment was unnecessary, wrong, and typical.

Eldridge Cleaver - Democrat? I'd say agent provocateur. And don't forget he became a Moony later.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

 

According to the article, he's correct that conflict of interest laws (or rules, which are they?) do not apply to the president or other elected officials. So if he wants to run his business from the White House, it looks like nothing can prevent him from doing so.

It's going to be a wild ride.

If a Democrat said that the political media would lose their minds in outrage and Republicans would call for immediate investigations.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

If a Democrat said that the political media would lose their minds in outrage and Republicans would call for immediate investigations.

 

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

 

According to the article, he's correct that conflict of interest laws (or rules, which are they?) do not apply to the president or other elected officials. So if he wants to run his business from the White House, it looks like nothing can prevent him from doing so.

It's going to be a wild ride.

 

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 - Emolument Clause:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

 

He may have to pay Putin some graft back.

[Michael Walton]

GLENN:  Surely you don't disagree that the US is unique in many ways...?

Sorry Glenn but we're not unique, nor are we E-xceptional, as in Exceptionalism.  We're no better nor worst than any of the other 6 billion humans who live on Earth.  All of us are just skin, bones, organs, and hair and we just so happen to live on land where a government was founded over 200 years ago.  And it's still going.  That's all.

I mean really, do you think Vietnamese people who live in little hamlets right at this very moment are going around thinking that they're exceptional? Or the people that live in the mountains of Peru?  Why are we any better than them - because we live in McMansions, drive BMW's, and take cruises twice a year down to third-world islands to lay on the beach and sip pina coladas?

It's that kind of "exceptional" thinking that can get a whole lot of people - and even countries - into a world of trouble for others who share the world. Hitler and other dictators who caused the deaths of millions come quickly to mind.  And this is the essence of Kennedy's American University speech - one of the keys to that speech was instead of looking inward, we need to look outward, but not in an hubristic way.  An example of that would be for a lawyer who represents a billion-dollar company, sees riches in a third-world country, has the ability to manufacture dissent in that country, overthrows that country's leaders, puts a friendly puppet leader in the deposed one's place, makes billions for his client, and then goes home to Georgetown that night, puts his slippers on and reads the paper while sipping on a martini.  Without batting an eye for the lives he destroyed while doing it.

Do you know who I speak of, Glenn?  If you do - and can put one and one together - then you'll really truly understand why John Kennedy was murdered 53 years ago yesterday. But if you continue to think that our country is unique and exceptional, then you won't get it.

Sorry to burst that bubble for you today.  

[Glenn Nall]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

GLENN:  Surely you don't disagree that the US is unique in many ways...?

Sorry Glenn but we're not unique, nor are we E-xceptional, as in Exceptionalism.  We're no better nor worst than any of the other 6 billion humans who live on Earth.  All of us are just skin, bones, organs, and hair and we just so happen to live on land where a government was founded over 200 years ago.  And it's still going.  That's all.

I mean really, do you think Vietnamese people who live in little hamlets right at this very moment are going around thinking that they're exceptional? Or the people that live in the mountains of Peru?  Why are we any better than them - because we live in McMansions, drive BMW's, and take cruises twice a year down to third-world islands to lay on the beach and sip pina coladas?

It's that kind of "exceptional" thinking that can get a whole lot of people - and even countries - into a world of trouble for others who share the world. Hitler and other dictators who caused the deaths of millions come quickly to mind.  And this is the essence of Kennedy's American University speech - one of the keys to that speech was instead of looking inward, we need to look outward, but not in an hubristic way.  An example of that would be for a lawyer who represents a billion-dollar company, sees riches in a third-world country, has the ability to manufacture dissent in that country, overthrows that country's leaders, puts a friendly puppet leader in the deposed one's place, makes billions for his client, and then goes home to Georgetown that night, puts his slippers on and reads the paper while sipping on a martini.  Without batting an eye for the lives he destroyed while doing it.

Do you know who I speak of, Glenn?  If you do - and can put one and one together - then you'll really truly understand why John Kennedy was murdered 53 years ago yesterday. But if you continue to think that our country is unique and exceptional, then you won't get it.

Sorry to burst that bubble for you today.  

Ah. That word...

Michael, hate to break it to you, but you didn't burst this bubble. I am a very proud American patriot who knows the real definition of patriotism.

I wasn't speaking of humans being better or worse (not worst) than others, I was speaking of our country. There's a difference. Human beings are equally valuable; Nations are not.

The United States is the greatest country on the planet - warts and all.

We are an exceptional country. So please lower yourself from such unattractive sanctimony when preaching to me.

The 1st Amendment

The 2nd Amendment

The 4th Amendment

The 18th Amendment

Employment

Economy

Technology

Baseball...

...

Freedom...

is there a country you'd prefer to live in, Michael...?

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

An example of that would be for a lawyer who represents a billion-dollar company, sees riches in a third-world country, has the ability to manufacture dissent in that country, overthrows that country's leaders, puts a friendly puppet leader in the deposed one's place, makes billions for [herself], and then goes home to Georgetown that night, puts [her] slippers on and reads the paper while sipping on a martini.  Without batting an eye for the lives [she] destroyed while doing it.

You mean like Hillary Clinton?

Edited November 23, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Michael Walton]

Oh, you forgot some others...

G(g)od

Country

Mom

Apple Pie

Chevrolet

****

Hillary...

Hillary? Ha, oh, that's a good one, Glenn.  She's a babe in the woods. Perhaps this is a great lesson of not knowing - or caring - about history or the real history of what's gone down in the good ole US of A.

But that's OK, Glenn.  You keep being that proud and patriotic American

[Paul Brancato]

On 11/22/2016 at 6:22 AM, Glenn Nall said:

I know this. I meant it no longer is the reason it's relevant.

(and i am working on Hillary's 'list.' haven't forgotten. busy as hell right now.)

Glenn - think of it this way. Back in the day the slave states also had smaller populations by far. States have rights in our constitution because of the differences in local interests, the main one being  -  slavery. You know, agriculture versus the new industrial revolution. Here is the question: Why, when it comes to electing a president, do states have any rights at all? Is there something about electing a president that should take into account ancient history? Why can't one president be good for people in all parts of the country? Today states go for one side or another by pretty small margins. And even when there is a big margin, there is still a sizable minority. That means that there are less clearly defined regional differences worth making lopsided compensation for. I think it's also important to remember that the biggest cultural divide is still north and south. Obviously that has a long history that we should be trying to move past instead of making special allowances.

The popular vote should be the vote, period. Why should presidents be elected by states at all? The main resistance to that modern idea is - the usual suspects. 

The other issues regarding working class rust belt swing states, which by the way isn't just white men (that really pisses me off) are very real, and are systematic. No political party has the moral high ground. We could argue about globalization all we want, but I would just like to stick to the point that America's working class does not have a rising standard of living, and there is a lot of financial hardship - low paying jobs, expensive healthcare, poor education. I don't think we should use these industrial swing states as an argument in favor of the electoral system. We all want people to have good jobs. It's not a states rights issue. You can make an argument that minimum wage could vary from state to state, but good paying jobs are needed everywhere. It's a national issue. Another national issue, the granddaddy, is discrimination by race or color or sex. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Paul Brancato

[Sandy Larsen]

American Exceptionalism

The end of World War Two left America in a particularly strong position among nations.

The CIA was created and one of its goals ever since has been to keep America at the top. At any cost, including influencing elections in other countries and sponsoring assassinations of certain leaders.

I love America and I feel blessed to have been born here. But I want nothing to do with CIA tactics designed to maintain America's power or economic advantage over other nations. What some might call American Exceptionalism.

The role of the CIA should be limited to protecting America (and possibly other nations) from aggressive forces and nations. And that's all.

IMO.

 

(P.S. Yes, I do know that there are other definitions for American Exceptionalism. I am picking on one in particular).

Edited November 24, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Kirk Gallaway]

10 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

GLENN:  Surely you don't disagree that the US is unique in many ways...?

Sorry Glenn but we're not unique, nor are we E-xceptional, as in Exceptionalism.  We're no better nor worst than any of the other 6 billion humans who live on Earth.  All of us are just skin, bones, organs, and hair and we just so happen to live on land where a government was founded over 200 years ago.  And it's still going.  That's all.

I mean really, do you think Vietnamese people who live in little hamlets right at this very moment are going around thinking that they're exceptional? Or the people that live in the mountains of Peru?  Why are we any better than them - because we live in McMansions, drive BMW's, and take cruises twice a year down to third-world islands to lay on the beach and sip pina coladas?

It's that kind of "exceptional" thinking that can get a whole lot of people - and even countries - into a world of trouble for others who share the world. Hitler and other dictators who caused the deaths of millions come quickly to mind.  And this is the essence of Kennedy's American University speech - one of the keys to that speech was instead of looking inward, we need to look outward, but not in an hubristic way.  An example of that would be for a lawyer who represents a billion-dollar company, sees riches in a third-world country, has the ability to manufacture dissent in that country, overthrows that country's leaders, puts a friendly puppet leader in the deposed one's place, makes billions for his client, and then goes home to Georgetown that night, puts his slippers on and reads the paper while sipping on a martini.  Without batting an eye for the lives he destroyed while doing it.

Do you know who I speak of, Glenn?  If you do - and can put one and one together - then you'll really truly understand why John Kennedy was murdered 53 years ago yesterday. But if you continue to think that our country is unique and exceptional, then you won't get it.

Sorry to burst that bubble for you today.  

Well put Michael, I didn't think Glenn was going to get that "e" thing. I was thinking of offering clues such as "Endowed"  as by our creator.

That's self righteous hubris that's part of our makeup can be dangerous and has been used as a pretext (Germany in the 20th Century comes to mind) to take great license. And I agree, in our past has lead to the killing of a President and into Vietnam.

As far as the Electoral College there were some more exceptional of us who thought that the less exceptional of us votes shouldn't count as much and that elections may need to be brokered.

[Michael Walton]

Kirk, agree with what you said.

Sandy, agree about WWII.  You may want to read this though as the hegemony with the US started before WWII:

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/COPA1998VJS.html

The funny thing about this though is people can be patriots and love their country but still offer dissent with how things are run.  But according to the "true" patriots (the flag-on-their-lapel kind) any kind of dissent is deemed traitorous. Like SL said above, I'm very grateful for being born in the USA but we mustn't forget that governments are run by people...and we know over the course of history the terrible things *people* not governments can do to others.